1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. As to the case of request for a voluntary auction of real estate C in the Daejeon District Court, the above case is applicable.

1. Basic facts

A. From June 18, 1999, the Plaintiff owned 341m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City.

On February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) consisting of KRW 150 million with respect to the instant real estate to E, and on February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) consisting of KRW 225 million with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant on February 27, 2014.

B. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant applied for the auction of the instant real estate based on the instant right to collateral security. On July 28, 2015, the Daejeon District Court rendered a decision to commence the auction of the real estate C (hereinafter “instant auction”).

C. The instant real estate was sold on May 27, 2016, and the registration of the establishment of the instant real estate was cancelled due to a voluntary auction on the same day.

On July 15, 2016, on the date of the auction of this case opened on July 15, 2016, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) under which the Defendant, who is the applicant creditor, distributes the amount of KRW 83,473,979 to the defendant, who is the applicant creditor, in the order of 125,60 won, 3,368,040 won, and 3,250,650 won, and 3,250,650 won, in the branch office of the National Health Insurance Corporation in the order of 3,250,650, and 83,473,979 won, among the amounts to be actually distributed (the pertinent tax).

E. On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution and stated an objection to the full amount of the Defendant’s dividends, and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers), the same shall apply below.

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion did not borrow money from the defendant.

Around February 2014, the defendant J (one-person F) and G (one-person H) lend money to the plaintiff as the betting name for the purchase right of the MU in a way that is illegal to the society.